Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1887-12-30
THE OPINION IN FULL.
Decision Of the Supreme Court Affirming
the ConstltutionaIty Of the Kan
sas Liquor Law.
States Have Authority to Sup
press Nuisances Without
Compensation.
Under Its Police Power a Legislature
May Danish 1ntoxicants from
State.
A Very Black Eye for Whisky-Full
Text or the Courts
Opinion.

others, affirming the Judgment of the lower court
in the two Nugler" cases and reversing the
Judgment in the Iiebold cnse. The effect of
this opinion is to declare valid the prohibition
laws of the State OF Kansas, and is, of course,
II decided victory for the Prollibtionists. The
opinion was delivered by Justice Harlan:
THE DECISION IN FULL.
These cases involve IN inquiry as to the va
lidity OF certain statutes of Kansas relating to
the manufacture and sale of Intoxicating liquors.
The first two are indictments charging Mugler
the plaintiff i'll error, i'll ono case with having
sold and in the other with having manufactured
spirituous, Vinous, malt fermented and other
Intoxicating liquors in Saline County, Kansas
without having the license or permit required
found guilty, fined in each 500 and
ordered to be committed to the county jail un-
til the fine WAS paid Each Judgment was
affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kansas
and thereby it is contended that the defend
ant wns deried rights, privileges, and immuni-
ties guaranteed by the Constitution of the
United States.
THE third case-State of Kansas, ex REL,
etc, vs.. Ziebold, etc-was commenced by peti-
ton filed in one of the courts of the State. The
relief sought is:
II. That the group of buildings constituting
the brewery of the defendants, partners MS
Ziebold & Hagelin, in Atchison County, Kansas,
be adjudged common nuisance, and the
Sheriff, or other proper officer, be directed to
abate the same.
20. That the defendants be enjoined from
using, or permitting to be used, the snd prom
Uses us place where Intoxicating liquors may
be sold, battered, or given away, or kept for
of law.
DEFENDANTS ANSWER
The defendants answered, denying the alle-
cations of the petition and aNerring:
u. That said buildings We're erected by them
prior to the adoption by the people OF Kansas
of the constitutional amendment prohibiting
the manufacture and sale of Intoxicating
liquors for other than medicinal, scientific and
mechanical purposes, and before the passage
of the prohDitory liquor statute of TINT State
20 That they were erected for the purpose of
manufacturing beer, and cannot be put to any
other use, and if not so used they Will be Of IL
&c value ,or luy purpose.
3. That the statute under which said suit is
brought is void under the fourteenth amend
1nent of the Constitution of the United States.
Upon the petition ind bond of the defend
ants the cause was removed into the Circuit
Court of the United States for tho district OF
Kansas. motion to remand it to the State
court was denied The pleadings were recast
courts of tho United states; and, the cause
having been heard upon bill and answer. the
suit was dismissed. From that decree the
State prosecutes an appeal.
THE KANSAS STATUTE.
by statute of Kansas, approved March 3,
1865, it was made II misdemeanor, punishable
by fine and imprisonment, for any one. directly
or indirectly, to sell spirituous vinOus, fer
mented, or other Intoxicating liquors without
having dramshop, tavern grocery license.
1t also declared among other things that every
place where intoxicating liquors were sold in
violation of statute should be taken, held and
deemed to be common nuisance, and it was
required that oil rooms, taverns, eating houses,
cellars. or other places OF public resort where
Intoxicating liquors are sold in violation of law
Stat, Kansas, 1865, CHI. S5.) But in 1850 the PEG.
pie of Kansas adopted more stringent policy.
On the I'd of November of that year they ratified
IN amendment to the State Constitution which
declared that the manufacture and sale of in
toxicating liquors should be forever prohibited
in that State, except for medical, scientific and
mechanical purposes In order to give effect to
chat amendment the Legislature repealed the
act OF 1865 and passed IN act approved Feb 49,
1881, to take effect May l. 1881, entitled AN act
to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoNi-
eating liquors, except for medical, scientific
and mechanical purposes, and to regulate the
ed purposes.
Its first section provides:
That any person or persons who shall man.
ufacture, sell, or barter any spirituous, malt,
vinous, fermented, or other Intoxicating liquors
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided,
however, that such liquors may be sold for
medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes,
rs provided in this act
PENALTIES AND EXCEPTIONS.
The second section makes it unlawful for any
person to sell or barter for either of such except
ed purposes any malt. vinous, spirituous, fer
mented, or other Intoxicating liquors without
having procured u druggists permit therefor,
and prescribes the conditions upon which such
permitmay be granted.
1.-The third section relates to the giving by
physicians OF prescriptions for Intoxicating
liquors to be used by their patients and the
fourth to the sale of such liquors by druggists.
The fifth section forbids any person from manu-
Intoxicating liquors in the State, except for
medicinal, scientific. and mechanical pur-
poses, and makes provision for the granting of
licenses to engage in the business of manufac-
turing liquors for such excepted purposes. The
seventh section declares it to be u misdemeanor
for any person not having the required permit
to sell or barter, directly Indirectly. spiritu-
ous malt, vinous. fer1nented, or other intoxi-
eating. liquors, the punishment prescribed
being for the first ohense IL fine of not less than
500 nor more than $500, or imprisonment in the
County Jail not loss than twenty nor more than
ninety days; for the second otfense Il fine of not
less than $500 nor more than $500. or impriso1l-
ment in the County Jail not less than sixty days
nor more than six months, and for every sub
sequent otfense Il fine not less than $500 nor
ty Jail not less than three months nor more
than one year, or both such fine and mprison-
1nent in the discretion of the Court.
1.-The eighth section provides for sinilur fines
ana punlshments against persons who manu-
facture or aid, assist, or albeit in the mnnufnct-
IRE IRE OF any intoSicatins LIQUORS without having
declares: among other things, all places where
Intoxicating liquors are manufactured, sold.
barter, or use, i'll violation of the act to be
mon nuisances, nnd provides that upon the
Judgment OF any court, having jurisdiction,
officer shall be directed to shut up and abnte
the same.
Under that statute the prosecutions against
Mugler were instituted. 1t contains other sec
tions i'll addition to those above referred to
but as they embody merely the details of the
general scneme adopted by the State Tor the
prohibition of the manufacture of Intoxicating
liquors, except for the purposes specified, it is
unnecessary TO set them out. On the 7th of
March. 1855, the Legislature passed IN act
nmendatory and supplementary to that of 1851.
The thirteenth section of the former act, being
the one upon which the Injunction suit against
Ziebold d Hageln is founded. will be given in
full in u subsequent part of this opinion.
THE FACTS IN THE CASE.
"1ne facts necessary to clear understanding
OF the questions common to these cases IRE the
following: MuSler and Iiebold a. Hngelin We're
engaged i'll manufacturing beer ut their re-
sDective establishments CONSTRUCTED specially
for that purrose for several years prior to the
passage of the act of 1881. They continued III
such business in defiance OF the statute and
without having the required permit. Nor did
Nlngler have IL license or permit to sell beer.
The single sale OF which he was found guilty
occurred i'll the State, and after May J. ISL
that is, after the act of Feb. 10, 1881 took effect
-itnd was of beer manufactured before its
passage The buildings and machinery const-
tutlns the respective breweries of the defend
ants are OF little value if not used for the pEr-
pose OF manufacturing beer that is to say, if
the statutes are enforced aga nst them the
value of their property will be Very materially
diminished. The general question in each
ease is whether the foregoing statutes of KAN
are in conflict with that clause of the
fourteenth amendment, which provides that
No State shall mako or enforce any law
which shall nLridge the privileges OF imlnunl-